I.
For Information ?
S. 91-50
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
• ?
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC
MEMORANDUM
To: Senate
?
From: J.M. Munro
Vice-President, Academic
Re: Review of the Department ?
Date: ?
September 19, 1991
of French
Attached is a summary of the report of the Department of French External
Review Committee for the information of Senate. The review was discussed
- - - -- -- - -
at - the -
Senate - Committee
--
on
-
AcademicPlanning,
-
andthQimifte VQted. to -
receive the report.
The report of the Review Committee and the response of the Department is
available in Secretarial Services, Registrar's Office, for any Senator who
wishes to read the completed documents.
Attachment
/pjs
Sununary
of the findings of the External Review of the
Department of French
?
•
In March 1991, the Department of French was examined by the External
Review Committee. The committee had the following members:
Professor Pierre Leon, of the Graduate Department of French at the
University of Toronto,
Professor Marthe Page from the Département de Littératures,
Université Laval, and
Professor Raymond LeBlanc, Institut des langues secondes,
Université d 'Ottawa.
Professor Kathy Mezei of the Department of English at SFU was
the internal member of the Review Committee.
The Department prepared a comprehensive self-study, examining the
strengths and weaknesses of the undergraduate program and its three
components: linguistics, literature and language, and the graduate
program, and offering suggestions for change for the problems identified
in the self-study. The External Review Committee's report depended
heavily on the Department's self-study.
The major recommendations of the External Review Committee (which
echo the needs identified by the Department) can be summarized as
follows:
The Department requires 2 additional faculty positions to provide
better course scheduling; development of better program linkage
with the Faculty of Education and the Linguistics Department;
encourage more research activities; encourage more linkage with
the outside community.
The Departmental Assistant position should be upgraded to a full-
time position in the Department of French, and should not be shared
with another department.
The undergraduate program would benefit by a revitalization of the
language laboratories, and improved co-ordination between
classwork and lab work. Material back-up (tapes, films,
newspapers, video material) needs to be improved. Course
improvements were suggested, such as expansion of the areas
covered in the literature program.
I
The graduate program should be repatriated to the Department,
rather than remaining as a combined graduate program with the
other two former DLLL departments.
As a result of the needs identified in the review process, the Department
of French has been working on curriculum changes, and a faculty position
has been authorized for 1992/93.
The report of the Review Committee, and the response by the
Department is available in Secretariat Services, Registrar's Office for any
Senator who wishes to read the complete documents.
I
0
SCAP 91-28
1
REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEW
?
COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OF FRENCH
?
Simon Fraser university
MEMBERS
Members of the review committee were:
Prof. Pierre Leon (Chair of Committee)
Graduate Department of French
Uni
v ersityoLToronto
?
_-_--__----__-- ------------ -
Prof Marthe Page
Département de Littératures
Université Lava!
Prof Raymond LeBlanc
Institut des langues secondes
Université d'Ottawa
Dr. Kathy Mezei
Department of English, SFU
MEETINGS
From Tuesday, March
5,
1991, to Friday, March 8, 1991,
meetings had been scheduled with Dean of Arts, Bob Brown;
Vice President, Jock Monro; Jaap Tuinman, Dean of Education;
Bruce Clayman, Dean of Graduate Studies; Barrie Bartlett,
Department Chair, as well as with all faculty members and
teaching staff, graduate students, representatives of
undergraduate students, departmental assistant, support and
technical staff.
INTERNAL REPORT
The external review committee had been provided in
advance with a carefully detailed INTERNAL REPORT OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF FRENCH at SMF. In the following
pages, this document will be referred to as the INT.REP.
2
The INT.REP. appeared to be extremely accurate and
complete in its description of the aims, philosophy, and history
of the department, giving for each programme a detailed
description of all courses with their strengths and weaknesses.
In a few cases only, the views of the committee will differ
from those expressed in the
INT.REP.
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
LANGUAGE PROGRAM
Strengths and weaknesses have been carefully pointed Out
in the INT.REP.(pp.5-8).
The committee has been quite impressed by the
high quality of
the French spoken by all students,
despite the fact that they live
in an anglophone environment.
A large number of the members of the teaching staff are
native French speakers. The others have a
perfect command of
the language as well.
All students have highly praised their teachers for being
competent, accessible and dedicated.
The chairman has also been
praised by staff and students for the same reasons.
Weaknesses have been found in conversation courses.
Students are complaining that classes may have up to
25
students. A remedy to this acute problem cannot be found in
training sessions in the language laboratory, due to the lack of
personnel and adequate programming..
Our recommendations would be:
1)
reinstatement of laboratory
instructors,
2) better
coordination
of class work and language laboratory,
3)
adequate language laboratory
material
for individual
training at all levels of instruction for all programs,
4)
a detailed
catalogue
of all available tapes for remedial or
any other type of work,
5) adequate
video equipment
allowing students to look at
and study various types of French films and other
authentic materials. This type of study is very important
to compensate for the absence of contextualized
practice.
A gap has been perceived between 202, 206 and 301
courses. There is certainly
not enough reading required in 202.
There is a need for a course in
remedial pronunciation.
This
0
3
course, intended to be given in the new program (see FR.312,
p.40, INT.REP.) will be a welcome addition to the program.
Attribution of
courses
does not seem to be always
adequate when comparing 205 and 300 conversation courses
allocated to faculty members, and a 302 advanced course in
written composition, for example, attributed to a sessional
lecturer at the last moment. The second type of course requires
much more experience, knowledge and assignments than the
first one.
A translation course
would be a good addition to the
existing program, for a better understanding of the linguistic
mechanisms of French and English as well. Eventually, a more
advanced course in translation theory could be added at a
-- -
?
---
-
higher ?
----------- -
?
--
Research is
needed in the area of teaching and evaluation
of language practice at beginning and intermediate levels, in
order to solve such problems as integration and\or
harmonization of immersion students in the classic curriculum.
This kind of research on language acquisition - comprehension
and oral skills - could be done by lecturers, who could
eventually become tenure track with the acquisition of a PHD
in the field.
Understaffing
can probably account for all of the
problems mentioned above, as well as others listed in the
following sections below.
LITERATURE PROGRAM
Strengths and weaknesses of this program are well exposed
in the INT.REP. (pp.10-12.).
The most original feature of the program is probably the
emphasis given to linguistics in a context where it is sometimes
neglected. Courses in Quebecois literature are also a good asset.
But they should certainly be expanded as should courses in
other modern fields, as suggested (p. 12):
At the 400 level, the areas of cinema, feminist literature,
francophone literature
outside Quebec and France would
certainly represent domains of significant relevance to the
literature program. But they need to be incorporated through
the establishment of
new courses.
0
In
LINGUISTICS PROGRAM
The linguistics program goal is primarily intended as "a
means to achieve insights into the structure and functionning of
the French Language" INT.REP (p.13). From this point of
view, the existing courses seem to be
adequate and coherent
in
both theoretical and applied linguistics.
Weaknesses
arise from the lack of an elementary
linguistics
introductory course
at the 200 level.
In third year, the shortness of the SFU semester does not
allow for the teaching of as much content as is needed in FR
306. This 306 course should be divided into two. For instance
phonetics, phonology and morphology could constitute the first
part, and syntax, semantics and sociolinguistics the second.
4th year students, with a good academic record (B
average) should be allowed to attend graduate courses.
At the 300 or 400 level, there should also be courses in
French
and Quebecois
culture,
as new courses are integrated
into existing courses.
?
-
GRADUATE PROGRAM
All graduate students are well trained and express
themselves in remarkably good and fluent French. The focus
on linguistics and literature is interesting, and the recommended
bibliography excellent.
Faculty members have been very flexible in
accomodating student interests. Despite the small number of
staff, an impressive increase in graduate student enrolment has
occurred (see INT.REP. p30).
Weaknesses
in the graduate
program is again the result of
understaffing.
Each course taught is in addition to a regular
undergraduate teaching load. Since there is no catalogue for
graduate studies, there is a lack of visibility for both the
program and its requirements. Besides, there are no
requirements that would give a uniform basis to a strong
graduate program.
The committee's recommendation is
that more should be
invested in this program by hiring at least two more faculty
members able to teach
,
at this level and by publishing a
structured program.
..
0
5
. ?
PHD PROGRAM
Excellent elements
are in place to sustain a graduate
PHD program and direct PHD work. In order to reach this
goal the French Department should:
1) continue to work in
conjunction
with other
departments, especially for linguistics
2) take advantage of the
specialisations
of new faculty
members to be appointed
3)
start a joint program in cooperation with the
Faculty
of Education
Repatriation
of graduate studies in an autonomous
French Department would seem advantageous from an
administrative
point of view (see INT.REP.,
p.
43). It would
- - -
?
also have the dàntagêf
?
- -
and scholarships in a more equitable manner between French,
Linguistics and Spanish. Each of them should certainly be given
the right of using as they see fit an equal amount of funds.
SIZE AND BACKGROUND
.
As already stated above, the existing
staff is too s,nall. A
comparison, for the academic year 1989-90,
(p.38
of the
'INT.REP) would show inequalities in the Department of
French, such as:
Number of faculty members: SFU: 7 Victoria: 15
Total number of students: SFU: 1 037 Victoria: 636
As
a result, students are complaining that there are, for
courses such as French syntax, 60 students or more who are on
a waiting list to enter the course. Most of them will have to
wait for
two years
before having a chance to take the course.
BACKGROUND
The whole staff is highly competent and praised for its
efficiency. But, due again to the small number of instructors,
there is
not enough diversity.
This situation is probably
reinforced by the strong philosophical consensus on the narrow
point of the close link between linguistics and literature as well
as by the long-term working relationships between the staff
members. Everybody must know how to do everybody else's
6
work in such a small unit. There is certainly a
need for new
blood.
The proposal made (p.44-45, INT.REP) would require,
when applied, hiring
specialists
in areas where there are
presently gaps in the literature and linguistics French program.
RESEARCH AND TEACHING CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FACULTY MEMBERS
Research:
Research has not been done as extensively as
could have been expected, because of the obvious fact that
faculty members have too much to deal with (administration
work, meetings, committee, teaching...). See list of publications
pp.
37.59
It must be added that the professors of the French
Department are working in isolation. It is not easy for them -
as it is for those in large departments - to participate in
research teams and publication networks. All this kind of
infrastructure which would stimulate research is lacking.
EXTERNAL RESEARCH SUPPORT: Due to the small
number of the staff and the obligatory diversity of research
fields, only individual grants have been awarded. Also the fact
that research is mainly concentrated on theoretical work has
probably resulted in grant applications for smaller amounts than
would otherwise be the case.
Recommendation.
Given that a new chairman position is in the
offing, it should be remembered that if larger research projects
are to be carried out, someone with strong leadership qualities,
as well as expertise in some domain will be needed. A
dynamic
and competent leader would probably be better than a highly
specialized person without team spirit.
ADEQUACY OF THE SUPPORT STAFF
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
The current part-time post shared with the Linguistics
Department is inadequate given the rapidly increasing size of
the French department.
A departmental assistant position, full time, is needed
for
each department, particularly in a trimester system where
registration and the other processes are repeated three times a
year (INT.REP. p.45).
0
7
SECRETARIAL STAFF
The workload could be
better shared between the
chairman's secretary and the receptionist.
RECEPTIONIST
This position should be
upgraded
so that more
responsibilities could be taken on.
ADEQUACY OF LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
The
inadequacy of
the SFU library in French is
emphasized by teachers and students. Books are primarily
missing in the area
of French Literature.
The UBC library is too
far away, and interlibrary loans often take too long to be
practical.
O ?
TAPE LIBRARY
As noted before this library requires a
serious updating
(see also INT.REP. p.47) and needs to be computerized, for a
modern circulation-control and listing
of
tapes.
More attendants
are also required to handle and control
tapes, especially in peak hours.
COMPUTING LIBRARY
The proposed computer laboratories project (INT.REP.
p.47) seems very interesting. But it will probably not replace all
the possibilities of a language laboratory.
LABORATORIES
A computing library should not make the language
laboratories obsolete. These laboratories would be better used
if, as noted before, a better coordination were established
between classwork and lab practice.
A
catalogue,
with specific detailed instructions should be
provided to students willing to work individually on diverse
aspects
of
French.
8
The existing equipment, which is more than 10 years old
needs replacement. A gradual replacement program should be
implemented.
QUALITY OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH
The department is still quite young and has only a small
number of graduate students. Up to now insufficient work has
been produced to allow for a fair evaluation.
SUPPORT FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS
Inadequate support is
provided for graduate students in
the Department of French. Scholarships are very rare or non-
existent.
Unequal division
of funds between Linguistics, Spanish
and French has been underlined above. Each department
should be given the right to an equal share of scholarships.
PROGRESS OF STUDENTS THROUGH THE- GRADUATE
PROGRAM
The graduate students' command of the French language
?
S
is very good. Their knowledge in the various disciplines seem
also to be reasonably good, as far as can be judged by the
committee, in such a very short period of time. Given the poor
level of resources of the present department, one can probably
not expect as broad a spectrum of knowledge as in a large
department.
EFFECTIVENESS
Administration
of
the department is
carried Out
remarquably well.
Student/faculty relations
are extremely good.
Relations with other institutions
could be improved. For
instance no one has attempted to organize any meetings,
research groups or colloquia between SFU and UBC.
Relations with the outside community
could also be
improved. Neither staff nor students seem to be actively
involved in French community clubs such as l'Alliance
Française, France-Canada, etc...
The Committee's recommendation
would be that a
French
Department Newsletter
be published regularly to create a link
between faculty members and graduate students with
announcements of internal and external events, meeting
summaries, research projects, work in progress, call for papers,
colloquia, publication of staff and student positions offered
elsewhere, festivities in French, lectures and films at the
Maillardville Alliance Française, etc.
BOOKSTORE
Students and teachers feel the need for the University
Bookstore to offer newspapers, magazines, and books in French,
especially given the already mentioned weaknesses in the library
holdings.
CONCLUSION
With a very small staff, the French Department has
mounted a solid program in a few short years. The number of
undergraduate and graduate students has been constantly
growing. But the department has now reached a point where
it requires:
1) additional Faculty
2)
a full time Departmental Assistant
3)
new courses
4)
more care in course attribution
5)
more investment in research, and better adjusted
workloads, to allow for a strong graduate program and
for joint programs with the Linguistics Department and
the Faculty of Education
6)
minor adjustment in various domains, as stated in the
report
* *** * *
Read and approved by the External Committee, Toronto:
41L
?
11(Ti
reo
?
Marthe Page
?
R''yiiond Leblanc
Date:.
4 ?
?
I
Date:
Rl,ô4,
l'
?
Date:
4.,
Ll
DEP6 1 ^R
7N
E
H7
(OF FAEHtm
©LIIL ir©
?
©Lr
--- ?
----- ?
------
(OF
MolMEilIkT1T1E4E
SUM
NER
8ENIPISr-TER
¶I1
.
0
DEPARTMENT OF FRENCH?
Response to External Review Report
The report of the External Review committee may best be
characterized as reflecting the views expressed in the Department's
own Internal Report. Thus, the strengths of which the Department
boasts and the weaknesses which it readily acknowledges in its
Internal Report are also those recognized and addressed by the
reviewers; further testimony as to the reality of these strengths
and weaknesses was apparently furnished by student input via
individual and group interviews with the Review Committee.
THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM -
The Department is pleased that the Review Committee has
therefore generally expressed its agreement with what the
Department values as representing the strengths and originality of
its tripartite undergraduate program in language, literature and
linguistics. Three individual examiners, each with expertise in one
of these areas, characterize the undergraduate program as of
positive value:
a)
in terms of the
"high quality of the French spoken by all
students"
b)
in that "the most original feature of the [literature] program
is probably the emphasis given to linguistics in a context where it is
sometimes neglected"
c)
in that "the existing [linguistics] courses seem to be
adequate and coherent
in both theoretical and applied linguistics."
Similarly, the weaknesses to which the examiners allude are
recognized and already discussed in some detail in the Department's
Internal Report. The Department takes comfort in the fact that such
weaknesses are not seen as manifold; no
?
hitherto unidentified
0
2
weaknesses ?
are ?
laid ?
bare by ?
the
Review ?
Committee and ?
the
Department ?
is
?
faced
?
with no ?
need
for ?
breast-beating
or ?
self-
exculpation. ?
In short, the Department
in ?
its ?
Internal ?
Report
and the
External ?
examiners ?
in ?
their report ?
are
clearly ?
in ?
accord
on what
constitute the weaknesses in
the undergraduate program; they differ
to ?
some degree ?
in ?
what are
?
seen as ?
the ?
resolutions to ?
these
problems.
.
Pages 2 - 4 of the Review Report include a number of
recommendations relating (in various degrees) to the
content/organization, the backup support, and the staffing of the
language, literature and linguistics components of the undergraduate
program. The points are here re-ordered as follows and each
bëoñãiiëd ?
- -
Language program:
Recommendation
1)
a revitalization of the language laboratories and improvement of
the co-ordination between classwork and lab. work. Language
laboratories should not be entirely replaced by computer labs.
Response:
The Department readily acknowledges that a better use can be made
of the lab. facilities even at a time when the current leaning in
terms of technolgical aids is towards the
interactive
capabilities
of the computer lab. In short, we see the need to maintain part of our
language laboratory facilities and to improve their use while at the
same time developing a computer-lab. facility.
The co-ordination suggested is a matter of internal course-planning
easily addressed.
Recommendation:
2)
an improvement in material backup: tapes, films, authentic
materials, video material etc.
Response:
Department agrees wholeheartedly; ii
acquiring, use and ready availability
Department persists in its long-standing
is partly in terms of the
of such materials that the
plea for sole and total use
.
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
and control of the French Language Training Centre's Lounge
facilities.
Recommendation:
3)
the expansion of some course curricula to include more reading
material; the addition of a course in remedial pronunciation; the
addition of courses in translation (practice and theory).
Response:
We agree that a certain increase of reading material even in the
lower-level language courses aimed at oral competence and
communication may well be desirable. This is a curriculum change
that will be implemented gradually.
As suggested in its Internal Report, the Department recognizes the
need for a course in remedial phonetics and plans to develop a
combination of courses in this area. It has already moved in this
direction with the establishment of the new French 312 course.
The suggestion for the addition of translation courses has two
aspects to it. First, the reviewers suggest that a practical
translation course be added as part of the program designed to
produce language competence as well as with
a
view to "better
understanding the linguistic mechanisms of French and English." We
are not convinced of the validity of such procedures to help improve
eithe oral or written competence in French; nor are we convinced
that such a course would provide knowledge more handled in a course,
of contrastive linguistic and stylistics. Second, the suggestion of "a
more advanced course in translation " implies a program in
translation - a highly specialized area of endeavour which, to be
effective, would have to go far beyond the addition of several
courses.
Recommendation:
4)
on the staffing of the language component (ranging from 100
through 300 level courses), the report makes a number of comments
and/or suggestions:
i) ?
that the practice of frequently mounting critical upper
level composition and oral courses by an ever-changing sequence of
(sometimes last-minute) Sessional Instructor appointees is to be
deplored:
3
o
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
4
• ?
ii) laboratory monitors should be re-instated:
iii)
formal evaluation of the language
program
should carried
on as should
research
within the language program
iv)
such research could be carried out by promotion of
Lecturers to tenure-track, rank on acquisition of a Ph.D.
v)
tape library requires updating and computerized control;
needs more attendants
Response:
The solutions proposed (i,ii,ii,iv,) - and certainly supported by the
Department - are based on the reviewers' perception of the
Department's need for more permanent faculty. posts. More
importantly, the Department sees the reinstatement of the
Laboratory monitor positions as critical to the
revitalisation
of the
language laboratory programs. Although research within the language
program is of undeniable importance to the health and deVlbp"ment
of a language program,
?
no provision is currently made in the
?
staffing arrangements of the Department for research to be carried
on. ?
The ?
Lecturers ?
are responsible for the elaboration and
mounting of the lower-level language courses and are expressly
freed', from research responsibilities in order to devote themselves
to teaching and to a greater and more frequent classroom presence
than CFL personnel. There are various ways of changing this
situation: the reviewers suggest the possibility of promotion from
non-CFL to CFL position for Lecturers completing a doctorate. The
Department does not subscribe to the idea of promotion from non-
tenured rank to tenured rank as a procedure attendant on the
completion of a doctorate; however, it certainly urges the opening
related to the language program. The tape-library facilities are
currently being reorganized and the loan-service computerized.
Literature Program
Unlike the language program, the literature (and the linguistics)
program poses no particular pedagogic problems which the
committee wished to address. The reports on Literature and
Linguistics are consequently briefer.
4
0
?
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
5
Recommendation:
1) that the areas of cinema, feminist literature, francophone
literature outside Quebec and France, French and Quebecois culture
deserve to be added to the program.
Response:
The Department sees this recommendation as of value largely in
terms of its general implication, viz, the need for more faculty.
Linguistics Program
Recommendation;
1) that Fren 306 be divided into two courses.
Response:The
recommendation arises from a Departmental
suggestion to develop two courses to replace 306 and that
phonetics, phonology and morphophonology constitute the first (200
level) course and morpho-syntax, semantics and sociolinguistics
constitute the second (300 level) course. New Course Proposals are
in process for the establishment of these two new courses.
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM
The reviewers' statements about the graduate program are both
confused and confusing and this despite their extensive discussions
with both faculty and graduate students and the information
provided by the Internal Report and the University Calendar. The
confusions arise in part from the strange situation created by the
split of the old DLLL into three autonomous departments none of
which has a graduate program. The reviewers had great difficulty in
understanding both the ?
administrative and the academic
organization of a number of what were once presented as
complementary areas of endeavour but which in fact already
functioned as virtually independent and coexistant programs within
the larger administrative unit of the DLLL.
The following opinions/recommendations may be culled from the
report:
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
?
0
L!J
.
Opinion:
"there is a lack of visibility for both the program and its
requirements. Besides, there are no requirements that would give a
uniform basis to a strong graduate program."
Response:
The Department agrees with the first sentence and
believes that the visibility of the program and the statement of
clearcut entry requirements will most easily be achieved when the
French graduate program is "repatriated " to the Department of
French.
The Department disagrees with the second sentence,
while admitting that the calendar has no clear
statement
of
requirements relating to French graduate studies
Note: -
?
One unfortunate and indeed egregious error in the report
appears to be
?
the result of a cross-language cônfüsioñôiLthe
-
part
-
of the reviewers all of whom speak French as their first language.
Mention of an "impressive increase in graduate student enrolment"
with reference to a table on p.30 on our Internal Report indicates
that the title "French Graduates (majors/minors)" was interpreted
as referring to the number of students in the graduate program
• rather than as students graduating per year from the undergraduate
program. This was certainly a
post-visit
error; while on campus the
reviewers met the gradudate students and appeared to be well aware
of the number of students currently registered.
Opinion:
"the focus on linguistics and literature is interesting, and
the recommended bibliography excellent"
Reaction:
An enigmatic statement actually referring to course
outlines of all French graduate courses taught over the last 15 years
furnished to the reviewers at their request. This is therefore their
attempt to evaluate quality of the program from the bibliographies
established for these courses.
Opinion:
"Excellent elements are in place to sustain a graduate
PHD program and direct PHD work."
Reaction:
The elements referred to are assumed to be faculty and
the graduate program as represented by the established courses. The
Department agrees but is also ready to accept the recommendation
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
i.e. "to continue to work in
conjunction
with other departments,
especially linguistics". As far as students are concerned there is
always the possibilty of taking graduate courses in other
departments of complementary disciplines including linguistics;
co-operation between the French and Linguistics Departments in
terms of membership in supervisory committees presents no
problems.
Recommendation :
"start a joint program in cooperation with the
Faculty of Education"
Response:
As demonstrated on a number of occasions, the
Department is always willing to discuss "joint programs " for
teachers of French with the Faculty of Education . It is felt however
that some decision must first be made on the fate of the M.A. -
Teaching of French Program left in limbo both by the moratorium
placed on it in 1985 and (since this degree was essentially a DLLL-
mounted program dependent on faculty from what are now different
departments) by the subsequent dismemberment of the DLLL.
Recommendation:
"hiring at least two more faculty members able
to teach at this [graduate] level. . ."
Response:
See below under
REQUIREMENTS
Recommendation:
"Repatriation of graduate studies in an
autonomous French Department would seem advantageous from an
administrative point of view"
Response:
This is the view stated in the Department's internal
report. However, as is also stated in that report, the question of
autonomy of the program goes far beyond mere administrative
convenience and sharing of scholarship funds, and strikes at the
heart of the academic integrity and reputation of a department. If
the list of French graduate courses that exists in the current
calendar and the list of French graduate faculty as published in the
current calendar have been capable without input from any other
faculty or program of sustaining a viable graduate program over the
last 10 -15 years under the rubric of the DLLL, then there can be no
reason for it not to do so under its own name and responsibility.
The Department is currently preparing a submission to
FAGS to have the French Graduate program excised from the
Language and Linguistics Graduate Program and to have it housed
1
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
?
0
where it logically belongs. It is understood that the Department of
Linguistics is to make the same request with regards to the
Linguistics graduate program.
Opinion:
Graduate students "express themselves in remarkably
good and fluent French" "The graduate students' command of the
French language is very good."
Reaction:
A gratifying comment on the students' linguistic ability in the
use of French; it reflects perhaps the tendency of native speakers of
French to place a degree of emphasis not only on what non-native
students of French say but also on how they say it.
Opinion:
"All graduate students are well trained." "
?
rkn0wdge - - -
in the various disciplines seem[s] to be reasonably good, as far as
can be judged by the committee, in such a very short period of time.
Given the poor level of resources of the present department, one can
probably not expect as broad a spectrum of knowledge as in a large
department."
• ?
Reaction:
The somewhat inappropriate terminology of "well .trained" is
assumed to refer to the opinion subsequently expressed that the
graduate students to whom they spoke gave every evidence of being
"reasonably good" in their various areas of study. The reference to
a
"broad spectrum of knowledge " appears to refer to unspecified
deficiencies in the program as mounted by a too small number of
faculty rather than to deficiencies in the students they met.
These opinions, however, are neither very clearly expressed
nor soundly argued or supported; they are difficult to respond to. It
is disappointing that no attempt was made to express an opinion on
the not inconsiderable body of theses directed by members of the
Department (listed as part of the documentation and available to the
reviewers).
8
0 ?
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
Ll
FACULTY
Research and Teaching contributions of Faculty members.
Opinion:
"Research has not been done as extensively as could have
been expected . .
Response: ?
This statement.. is, to say the least,
?
contentious. If the research and publications of the department are
considered as a whole then
?
there is little question that they ?
compare favourably with other departments of French. Individual
output varies, and this generally proportionately to the
administrative and teaching loads involved. It is indeed unfortunate
that the reviewers have failed to express the shock and disbelief
that they expressed orally about the
course-load assignments
of faculty members over the years. They expressed considerable
concern over the diversity of courses offered by faculty over the
course of the years as well as annual course-loads frequently
involving five different courses. They therefore attribute what they
appear to see as a lack to "the obvious fact that faculty members
have too much to deal with . .." - a statement that appears to
understate their opinion.
The point about "working in isolation" is valid to a certain
degree. Thus, it is true that a small number of people involved in
maintaining a diverse and reasonably elaborate program in French
literature and French linguistics share few specialized research
interests within the Department. However, the reviewers failed to
note or to understand the contacts which all faculty members have
and maintain with other academics in their particular fields. This
fact can be ascertained by looking at the publication records which
clearly show that faculty members have good and wide contacts not
only in Canada but more particulalry throughout much of Europe. It
remains true, however, that, given the diversity of research
interests, there simply is no basis for research teams nor, as the
reviewers indicate, for large grant applications.
Given the current direction in external funding towards the
team application for large grants, the Department must address
itself to the problem of a
departmental research program
involving
a number of faculty in disparate fields.
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
This problem - as suggested by the reviewers - should be tied
to the selection of a new Chair to the Department. As of September
1, 1991 there will be a one-year interim Chair. Discussions with the
Dean of Arts and the Vice-president (Academic) re a more permanent
selection will take place during the coming academic year.
SUPPORT STAFF
Recommendation: ?
the creation of a fulltime Departmental
?
Assistant post
Response:
The reviewers come from universities that work under entirely
different administrative -and calendar conditions. They. had some
difficulty in appreciating what a trimester system means in terms
of constant administrative pressures and the sustained demand on
the academic counselling resources ofa department. Their
recommendation is supported wholeheartedly not only by the
Department of French but by the Department of Linguistics with
whom the Current Departmental Assistant is shared.
10
.
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
REQUIREMENTS
A final list of "requirements" brings the report to a close; this
statement of requirements is not exhaustive in that it does not
summarize the recommendations scattered throughout the report.
"1) additional Faculty
2)
a full time Departmental Assistant
3)
new courses
4) more care in course attribution
5)
more investment in research, and better adjusted
workloads, to allow for a strong graduate program and for
joint programs with the Linguistics Department and the
Faculty of Education."
Response:
Recommendations 1) to 4 )and part of 5) could probably be applied
to any department in the University. ?
However, despite the
"motherhood" status of such recommendations, the Department
wishes to draw attention to one fundamental point. Although the
external reviewers have depended to a large extent upon the
Department's own Internal Review as a source of their information,
opinions and argumentation, in one facet at least they have gone
beyond the spirit and the content of that report. Virtually every
part of their report, be it on the language, literature, linguistics,
undergraduate or graduate programs, draws attention to the
problem of understaffing as something ?
of which they became
acutely and quickly aware. In short, their emphasis on the problems
caused by the level of staffing in the Department goes beyond any
comments made either in our report or in our discussions with
them. It is therefore our contention that the problem of
staffing (both academic and administratvie) is to be seen
as one that goes beyond a mere perennial departmental
clamour for more posts and should be treated as one of
critical concern.
11
S
Ll
Department of French ?
Response to Review Report
EVALUATION
OF
THE REVIEW REPORT
The Department is disappointed with the quality of the report. While
the reviewers are for the most part positive in their judgements of
the various aspects of departmental programs, staffing and
administration, we feel that their written report is confused and
confusing. It depends too fundamentally on the Department's own
Internal Review and the arguments there presented. While it is
satisfying to be taken at one's own evaluation, the Department
would have appreciated fresh insights, opinions and suggestions
based on the broader experience of the reviewers.
12
0 ?
Department of French
?
Response to Review Report
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Office of
the Vice-President, Academic
SMemorandum
To: ?
SCAP Members
From: ?
Alison Watt, Secretary of SCAP
Subject: ?
Meeting: 18 September, 1991. Item on French Department Review
SCAP 91-28a
Date: ?
16 September 1991
The External Review of the French Department makes frequent reference to the
Internal Report prepared by the Department at the outset of the review. Attached
are relevant sections -
of -
the
-
Interna:l- -report-which -a re referred to in the External- - - - ------ -----
report.
.
?
Enclosure
?
JJ'-
[I
[1
I.
000a ©
T ?
TE
1.
DISTINCTIVE FEATURES
Emphasis on the ability to communicate in French prior to undertaking
more advanced studies in literature and linguistics is certainly no longer a
feature that makes this Department distinct from other French
departments. However, the existence of a coherent program in French
linguistics as a complement to the French literature program constitutes a
distinctive - even if not uniquely distinctive - characteristic of the
Department in. comparison with other departments of French in Canada,
especially when the comparison is made with departments of approximately
the sàftié size. in practice, both the literature and the linguistics programs
adopt the basic view that each represents a way of looking at and studying
language and language use. Every effort is made to break down the
traditional barriers that have so long alienated literature and linguistics
and to share and develop analytical tools and approaches. We strongly
believe that our attempt to elaborate a program where literature and
linguistics are seen as interdependent and enriching approaches to the
study of language phenomena represents a distinctive and valuable feature
of the Department.
2.
PROGRAM CONTENT AND STRUCTURE
1) Language Program
a) General description and goals
The French language program started with the university in Fall 1965.
It has greatly expanded since that time but has remained faithful to its
basic philosophy: that oral competence is fundamental and must precede
reading and writing; that language competences must precede the study of
literature and linguistics.
Many changes have occurred in the quarter of a century which has
passed. The program as first implemented was
•
based upon the audio-
lingual method, subsequently changed to audio-visual methods, and has
changed again to a variety of eclectic
?
methods with an increasing
zi
I
?
Department of French
?
Internal Report
6
emphasis on a communicative approach. Although they have changed in
title, status and responsibilities, native French speakers or persons with
native speaker ability have always predominated as (generally temporary)
classroom teachers. Thus, the "native informants" of the audio-lingual era
evolved into "language instructors". Lecturer positions were created in
1975 specifically to take responsibility for the elaboration, organization
and mounting of the lower-level language courses.
Concurrently, other schools, colleges and universities were also
abandoning the traditional grammar/translation/literature courses for
approaches with a greater emphasis on oral competence, so that SFU is no
longer unique in this respect.
b)--Current language program
Simon Fraser University has no universal French language requirement
for admission (Beginner"s Language Grade 11 which may or may not be
French - is the only admission requirement) and no general second
language requirement to graduate. Consequently, .the Department is not
faced in its elementary courses with huge numbers of students interested
I
solely in fulfilling a university regulation. In short, students registering
even in the elementary courses generally do so out of interest or for some
specific personal goal.
Lately, the influx of students from the French Immersion programs is
presenting us with. new challenges.
The current language program has three steps:
- 100/101, 110/111, for beginners. The courses are below the normal
competence of entrants from B.C. High Schools French programs and are
regarded as service courses. They are not part of the "challenge" system.
- 151, 201, 202 and 206 are intermediate courses each lasting one 13-
week semester. Most future French Majors and Minors enter the system at
some point in this series while otherstudents usually finish here. Emphasis
is initially on oral skills followed by a shift to written skills.
/
0
?
Department of French ?
Internal Report
I
I.
I
I
I
7
This progression through the first two years has an accompanying
series of parallel courses answering specific needs or offering the
opportunity to enhance competence. These are 110 and 111 (reading
competence), 205 (intermediate conversation - to provide oral maintenance
while students take 202/206 with their greater emphasis on writing), 216
for entering immersion program students, and 199 for native or erstwhile
native speakers needing to upgrade their writing abilities before entering
the program.
- 300, 301 and 302 (covering advanced conversation and advanced writing)
serve mostly .those students who want to major or minor in French. They
represent the culmination of the language program.
- - -The- general -basis for- initial registration in -the 100 and 200 series of
-
courses is a placement test. This consists of a combined Standardized Oral
Test, a short written test aimed at evaluating knowledge of grammar and
vocabulary and, in many cases, an interview.
Advanced placement in the series permits the student to apply for
challenge credit for any courses '"jumped" (up to a total of 13 credits).
Challenge credit is awarded after successful completion of the advanced
course in which the student is registered.
Transfer credit for courses taken elsewhere (particularly in B.C.
colleges) is a regular feature of admission. Moreover, students progressing
through the 100 - 200 series of courses are encouraged to go to Quebec
(most particularly under the aegis of the Summer Bursary Program) and to
France to take courses for which they may also be awarded transfer credit.
The language courses are backed up by extensive tape library and
language laboratory facilities. The laboratories are now used primarily on a
library basis (i.e. students follow - in their own time - a tape program
accompanying the course they are taking) and as a means of regular
testing.
ri
.
Department of French
?
Internal Report
I
8
C)
Strengths of the language program
I
The strengths of the language program lie essentially in the careful
gradation of objectives in the 151, 201, 202 and 206 series of courses and
in the transition of emphasis from oral to written. These courses are
backed up by the beginners courses (100 and 101), the special course for
Immersion students (216), the maintenance oral course (205) and the
remedially-oriented course for francophones, etc. (199). These courses,
I
?
?
which parallel and .bolster the basic series, give a degree of flexibility to
the program in terms of the individual needs of students.
The advance placement and the challenge and transfer policies all help
to encourage students to travel to francophone universities. The placement
J
test functions with, a reasonable degree of accuracy and helps to maintain
-
a level of homogeneity in- the classes... The tirnetahl.ing..(mjilti-sections and
concurrent scheduling of different courses) permits relatively easy
transfer from course to course during the initial days of each semester.
The use of Language Instructors under the direction of a course
chairman allows for relatively small classes - for the most part somewhat
•
?
?
below the national average. The number of Language Instructors employed
also permits students to encounter a variety of accents.
Lab. facilities permit students to undertake listening and pattern
practice in their own time and also permit rapid and relatively frequent
testing of some of the oral aspects of the courses. Oral testing farms an
important part of these basic courses and is based upon individual
interview.
French 300 (Advanced Conversation) - unlike Fren 205 which is a
maintenance course - is designed to engage conversation skills over a wide
range of topics and situations and aims to develop the skills that
characterize authentic speech.
French 301 and 302 ( Advanced Composition I and II) are taught by
tenure-track faculty and - frequently - by Sessional Instructors or
replacements. They are sequenced courses with the common purpose of
consolidating writing skills, not simply in terms of normative grammar,
but also in terms of argumentational abilities and contextual
appropriateness. The courses therefore aim to produce writing skills that
are authentic and appropriate . to a variety of real life uses rather-than
simply academic/pedagogic in emphasis.
0 ?
Department of French ?
Internal Report
9
d) Weaknesses of the language program
The 13-week semester system places some constraints on course
content. University regulation requiring that upper levels courses be
"reachable" after no more than four semesters of prerequisite' courses
prevents establishing a more elaborate program with a greater number of
courses covering the same material in smaller "doses". (The local colleges
offer-far more courses covering' the same material; on admission to SFU a
maximum 13 units of college credit may be transferred , i.e. equivalent to
our 151, 201, 202 and 206 series
- .) One of the results of this situation is
that there tends to be an observable gap between the 202/206 and the 301
language courses which some students have difficulty in bridging.
I
F
I.
f
The weaknesses in
the 301 and
302 courses
result
- not so much from
their ?
aims ?
or ?
content ?
- but ?
from ?
their ?
position between ?
the formal ?
skills
taught ?
in ?
the ?
100 ?
and
-
o1'eve'ri Uägé
?
ôths
and - -
the
-
?
ãrié't'
?
ôf'
Ifunctional ?
writing ?
skills
required ?
of students ?
in their 400-level ?
literature
and ?
linguistics ?
courses.
Certainly 'class
size ?
is
also
a ?
factor ?
that ?
gives
cause for concern. (classes can vary
from 16 to 40).
The number of Language Instructors needed to teach in any of the 100
and 200 level courses may be seen as a source of a certain rigidity in terms
of weekly planning which, to some degree, is inimical to methods becoming
more oriented towards the concept of communicative competence.
While the problems of pronunciation are adequately treated as part of
the courses as offered, there is a need for a course dealing with phonetics
and remedial pronunciation..
It is recognized that the program should permit a degree of controlled
experimentation in terms of methods and should include some program
evaluation in terms of applying standardized. testing to students. Neither of
these is currently practised.
If
1..
Department of French
?
Internal Report
I., ?
S
I
2) Literature Program
10
I.
a) General Description
&
Goals
Students take their first course in literature only after having
acquired a reasonably solid language competence (oral and written)
represented by French 202 - three
.
semesters subsequent to Grade 12
J ?
French.
The program consists of fifteen courses ranging from the introductory
and general to the advanced and specific. All courses are given in French
and students are expected to do all written and oral assignments in
French.
-
All students with a declared program in French are required to take
either
-
French 2
'
30 or 240. These introductory courses are designed to give
the student a sampling of contemporary creativity and thought as seen in
literary texts (novels, plays, short stories, screenplays, poetry) from
Quebec or France. For a fair proportion of non-francophone students these
courses represent the first occasion upon which they will study a full-
length, unabridged text in a literary as opposed to a language-learning
perspective. Consequently, the main objective of these courses is to
S
introduce students to the structural techniques of literary analysis. Basic
concepts of theme, composition, narrative devices and problems of. genre
are presented. The works are also related to their socio-cultural
background.
At the 300 level, the second introductory course (360) extends and
reinforces chosen techniques of literary analysis. Texts selected for this
purpose are chosen from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Students thus
have, a diachronic view of French literature and literary movements as well
as exposure to and practice of a variety of analytical tools. This course is
required of all students following a French Major program; Minors may
choose between this course and its equivalent in French linguistics (i.e.
French 306).
In these introductory courses, classes consist of discussions,
individual oral
,
presentations (10-15 minutes according to class size), and
ri
It
0
Department of French
?
S
?
Internal Report
I, ?
11
I ?
short written essays on assigned topics. This latter task is, of course, the
most arduous for the non-francophone' students. While little or' no library
I
research is required at this level, students do, on average, 2-3 hours
preparation per class hour. Classes meet three times a week.
After completing the two introductory courses, students have access
to the 400-level genre (3 hrs/week) or/and period (4 hrs/week) courses in
French and Québec literatures. Every semester, the student may choose
from two to three 400-level literature courses, all of which are given in
French.
Depending on the instructor, these advanced courses place emphasis on
aspects of cultural history or problems of literary theory; however, all
involve close textual analysis. On the average, 6/7 complete novels - plays
- 'etc. arestudied'in'a thirteen-week--period.----
?
---
?
--
Three courses and one seminar are designed for students wishing an
in-depth study of either a specific topic, genre, author or theoretical
problem. The main purpose of these courses is to focus on applying
concepts and methods of linguistic analysis to the study of literature.
Two service courses, given in English, one at the 100 level, the other
at the 300. level, deal with culture and . civilization, and with French-
Canadian Literature in translation. These courses do not count for Majors,
Minors, Honours in French and usually attract students in the Humanities or
taking various certificates or joint programs in Liberal Arts, English,
Canadian Studies.
b) Strengths of the literature program
A small, coherent program mounted by a limited number of faculty can
lead to unanimity as to purpose. Thus, there is general agreement on the
necessity
a)
to develop a reliable set of analytical tools
b)
to allow a variety of interpretations/orientations
c)
to develop skills for presentatio
n
of a specific point of view.
This eclectic approach is skill-oriented and, 'because of the particular
make-up of the Department with its strong linguistics component, the
I
1 0
?
Department of French
?
Internal Report
12
linking of the two disciplines (literature .& linguistics) has been inherent in
the program's philosophy since at least 1970. Unlike other universities
where this linking process is carried out by faculty who have a literary
preparation and a strong interest in linguistics, in this Department the two
disciplines are together, under the same roof, but taught by specialists in
each discipline, independent but complementary.
C)
Weaknesses of the literature program
There are lacunae in certain fields. The 300 level would benefit from
an additional course to give a greater breadth of preparation for the 400
level courses. Such a course could be developed to give a panoramic view of
literature, culture and civilization.
----------------At the 400 level, the--areas of- cinema, -ieminist--literature -francophone
literature outside Quebec and France all represent domains of significant
relevance to a literature program and need to be incorporated through the
establishment of new courses.
3) Linguistics Program
0 ?
a). General Description & Goals
In its beginnings, the French Linguistic program was closely allied to
the program in General Linguistics; it was generally believed that any
university language program should have a strong linguistic base. Applied
linguistics determined the methods of teaching French as a second
language, and General Linguistics courses (in English) were required of
students majoring in French. One consequence of the priority thus
assigned to the domain of linguistics was that the French program very
early evolved a basic French linguistics program covering phonology,
morphology, syntax and semantics. Over the first ten years, this program
became more elaborate, finally reaching, in the mid-eighties, its present
state.
Currently, the. French Linguistics program covers most aspects of the
French language perceived as a linguistic system within some theoretiôal
framework. However, the main emphasis of the program is not to teach
linguistic theories for the sake
of
the theories themselves (as may be the
Department
of
French ?
Internal Report
13
case in a
d
epartment of General Linguistics) but rather as a means to
achieve insights into the structure and functioning of the French language.
Consequently, the Department has not restricted itself to one school of
linguistics, but adopts a variety of theoretical stances. (from French
linguists as well as non-French linguists) best serving the analysis of
specific aspects of the French language.
The French Linguistics program therefore aims to permit students to
achieve an
u
nderstanding of the formal structure of the French language in
all its aspects and the ability to analyze French data. The program takes
into consideration the particular needs of students wishing to become
teachers of French, in that it offers a course in applied linguistics
(applied to the teaching of French) and gives some basic exposure to
practical phonetics and to sociolinguistic problems.
- The program
of ten courses at
serving the needs
consists of one introductory course at the 300-level and
the' 400-level, not including the four 400-level courses
of both literature and linguistics.
For the student, the introductory course - French 306 - represents the
bridge between a knowledge of French (i.e. the ability to use the language)
and a knowledge about French (i.e. how to approach, analyze and describe
various linguistic aspects of the French language). The student must
therefore have acquired a reasonably solid language competence (oral and
202).
written) before entering French 306 (i.e. having completed at least French
At the 400 level,, the French linguistics program covers the major
area
g
of linguistic analysis of French (phonology, morphology and syntax,
p
semantics
erspectives.
and
It deals
lexicology)
also with varieties
from both
(social,
syn
regional
chronic
and
and
stylistic)
diachronic
as
Acquisition.
well as with
?
French linguistic theories and theories of Second Lan
guage
The program is deemed to constitute a coherent study of French seen
as a linguistic system.
1'
•
D
epartment of French
?
. ?
Internal Report
b)
Str
engths of the linguistics
program
?
14
Four Specific factors account for what can be seen as the strength of
by
the
faculty
linguistics
whose
pr
ogram.
formation
First,
tended
the program
to be as general
was
el
aborated from the start
li
nguists Using French
program
theoretical
as the object
consists
vi
ewpoints
l
anguage.
of a coherent
both
Second,
European
body
faculty
of
and
core
r
epresent
North
courses
A
a
merican.
fairly
with
broad
a number
Third,
range
the
of
of
links
are
dependent
seen
with,
as
and
but
inte
the
more
rdependent
i
mportance
peripheral
and
of,
efforts
courses.
the other.
are made
Fourth,
in
linguis
both areas
tics
and
to show
literature
the
While all the courses aim to make Students conversant with a
l
these
theoretical
are never
stance
e
mphasized
as well
to
as
the
me
point
thodological
where the
and
data
analytical
- namely
processes
the French
program
anguage
is
-
pr
is
incipally
lost sight
to offer-
of. In
-a_deeper
short, the
--un
objective
derstanding
of the
of, and
linguistics
greater
insights into, the French language and its functioning.
C)
Weaknesses of the
li
nguistics program
Unlike the literature program, the
l
inguistics program has no 200 level
in
troductory course. This means that the sole
intr
oduction that students
•
have to the points of view and the methodological
app
roaches adopted by
li
nguistics is. in terms of French 306. It is apparent that a course
C
onsisting of 39 class hours cannot hope to cover the basic concepts
relating to the study of phonetics Phonology,
morphology,
lexicology and
s
emantics These howev
?
syntax,
er, are the areas treated by the 400
of
level
these
courses
areas
to
therefore
which 306
tend
is the
to
in
be
troduction.
glossed
Certain
over,
im
portant aspects
d
epending on the
p
articular faculty member giving the course. It is therefore desirable that
in
some effort be made to split the content of 306 and establish the first
troductory course at the 200 level. Given the limitations on the number
upper
Of lower
The
levels
level
courses
major
prer
equisites
co
p
rograms,
nstituting
that
this
the
a
Constitutes
department
program
a
consist
problem.
may require
of a body
for entry
of fixed
into
content courses. A greater degree of flexibility (to answer applied needs
and student interests) could be achieved by the addition of one
?
?
(variable content ) topics courses.
?
S ?
or two
.
D
?
epartment of French
?
Internal
S
?
Report
H
30
.
?
register in
?
400-level courses have 'had to be denied. The
situation at the 300-level (affecting
?
required
language,
?
literature and linguistics courses ) is as bad.
2. FRENCH GRADUATES
Table 6: Graduates (majors/minors) per year
?
-' ?
1979/80 ?
8990*
Year ?
'
?
Majors
?
Minor ?
Total
79/80
23
8
31
80/81
10
8
•
?
18
81/82
12
5
17
82/83
17
9
26
83/84
10
.8
18
84/85 ?
,
18
12
30
85/86 ?
'
16
11 ?
'
27
86/87
22
1'1
33
87/88
14
12
26
88/89
19
11
30
89190
37
29
66
Totals 1980-1990
?
198 ?
124 ?
332
*
Source: Office of Analytical Studies
Department of French
?
Internal Report
I
?
5. COMPARISON WITH OTHER FRENCH DEPARTMENTS
?
38
Table 10: Survey of a selection of French
Departments across Canada
(1989/90
Academic Year)
?
SFU
Caig Daih McGill Queens Regina Toron. Winn.
?
Vict. York
Faculty
Prof. ?
1
?
6 ?
8 ?
8 ?
4 ?
2
?
28 ?
3 ?
2 ?
3
Assoc.Prof
?
5 1 0 ?
4 ?
8 ?
7 ?
6 ?
45 ?
2 ?
3 ?
1 0
Assist.Prof
?
1
?
3 ?
4 ?
5 ?
5 ?
1
?
6 ?
1 ?
1 0 ?
4
•
?
Total: ?
7
?
1 9 1 6
?
21 ?
1 6 ?
9 ?
79615
?
17 -
Undergrad
Students
Lower 1ev. 693 1150
?
1077 1027
?
2173 300 382 1151
Upper 1ev. 344 1000
?
279 675
?
828 300 254
?
605
%Upper ?
33.2 46.5
?
.
0
.
6
.
7
2
7
6
.
20.
39.
.
. ?
5 ?
3 .
9 3
.
4..5
O
Total:
.................................................
?
1037 2150 92 132
?
1356 1702
?
3001 ?
600 636 1756
Graduate
DoctoralMasters
??
6
i ?
1
1
0
?
29
7 ??
4477 ??
1
6
5
??
0
1 ??
41
1 5
??
0
0
??
00
??
0
0
Total:
?
7 11 36 121
?
21
?
1 ?
56 ?
0
?
0 ?
0
* Source: Office of Analytical Studies
Table 10 serves to indicate the understaffing of the
Department relative to other Departments of French in a small
/
1
0
D
epartment of French
?
Internal Report
41
uence. This would be particularly valuable at the 206 and 301
is
F,
-ihat
?
Increasing numbers of Immersion Program students means
we should be planning to expand the frequency of French -216 and
also be planning a follow-up course.
It is intended that we introduce a 100 or 200 level course
éñtitled -The pronunciation of French. This will be designed to
häi,dle the pronunciation problems of students and particularly of
those students whose mother tongue is not necessarily English.
The number of native French speakers wishing to enrol in
! the program is increasing. French 199 (offered as a distance-
education
?
course) does not entirely answer -their- -review/remedial - - -
needs; a new course (French 299) is in the process of development.
2. LITERATURE PROGRAM
1) Changes proposed
In the perceptions of anglophone students, students with
native fluency who nevertheless need to take the introductory
literature courses at the200 level pose problems. There is a need to
develop a correspondence course dealing with the introduction to
literary analysis as an alternative to 230/240.
There is a need for a further intermediate course at the
300 level that would furnish a panoramic view of francophone culture
and civilization as reflected in literature.
The program should be expanded at the fourth-year level by
the creation of courses dealing with cinema, feminist literature and
fr
ancophone literature outside of Québec and France.
[I
?
Dep
artment of French
?
Internal Report
'p
42
3. LINGUISTICS PROGRAM
1) Changes proposed
The content of Fren 306-3 Introduction to French
Linguistics must be lightened by the creation of a new 200-level
course. This can be done most profitably by a new course entitled
Introduction to French phonetics where the basics of phonetics,
the IPA and basic concepts of phonology will be taught.
The highly structured content of the courses at the 400.
level needs to be made more flexible by the introduction of two topics
I
courses which can be used to deal with the practical applications of
--------ling.uisticstosociolinguistic_o.r_pedagogic. concerns._____-------------- -- -- -.
*
Department of French ?
Internal Report
4.:lI
1'•
1^3
?
4.
GR
ADUATE
1) Changes
PROGRAM
proposed
43
No new courses are envisaged at the present time, but we
believe that in order to broaden the*
p
rogram's appeal and to attract
more students, we need to develop special topics courses offering the
Possibility of exploring specialized subjects.
The M. A. Teaching of French Program - as currently set
up - will be difficult to revive both in practical, economic and
staffing terms and in terms of some of its content and aims.
Nevertheless there is a strong feeling that a Master's program of this
I
?
sort can fill an increasingly
?
important need in the teaching
profession at both the school and the college level. ItJs hoped that - - - - -
t
with tfteFac1Jltyof Education will lead to
the establishment of some shared program.
6
We believe that it is imperative that the French
g
raduate
program as it exists be "repatriated" - that is, that it be made in
principle what it is in fact, a program administered by, mounted by
and directed by the Department of French. In short, it should cease to
be a part of an overall program given the ambiguous and indeed
inaccurate title of Program in Languages and Linguistics, and become
the sole
r
esponsibility of what, in all aspects except graduate
studies, is the autonomous Department of French. Quite apart from
the advantages to academic reputation that such a move would
create, it would in a practical sense simplify some complex
g
ad
raduate
ministrative
funding
situations
in a more
and
equitable
also require
manner
the university
in that Teaching
to share
As
D
epartments
sistantships
of
and
French,
Scholarships
of Linguistics
would
and
be assigned
of Spanish
individually
and not simply
to the
es
assigned
sentially
as
different
a lump
programs.
sum to be fought over by comparing students in
Dep
artment of French
?
Internal Report
